Stalking : policing and prosecuting practices in three Australian ...

typologies (see Table 1). For
example, Zona et al.’s (1998)
research, which is predominantly
concerned with psychiatric
classification, divides two of these
classifications, (simple
obsessional and love obsessional)
on the basis of the relationship
between the offender and victim.
Similarly, Mullen et al. (2000),
Harmon et al. (1998) and Wright
et al. (1996) utilise a mixture of
motivations and psychiatric
characteristics in the
development of their typologies.
Specific examples of
categorisations of stalking
include Harmon, Rosner and
Owens (1995) who developed a
classification scheme for the
offenders along two axes: “one
relating to the nature of the
attachment between the
defendant and the object of their
attentions, and another relating to
the nature, if any of the prior
interaction between them”
(Harmon et al. 1995, p. 189).
Australian Institute of Criminology
Table Table 1: 1: Selected Stalking Typologies
AUTHORS CLASSIFICATION
Zona, Sharma and Lane (1993) Erotomanic
Love obsessional
Simple obsessional
Harmon, Rosner and Owens Affectionate/amorous
(1995)
Persecutory/angry
Geberth (1996) Psychopathic
Psychotic
Roberts and Dziegielewski Domestic violence
(1996)
Erotomania/delusional
Nuisance
Wright, Burgess, Burgess, Non-domestic (organised or delusional)
Laszlo, McCrary and Douglas
(1996)
Domestic
De Becker (in Orion) 1997 Attachment seeking
Identity seeking
Rejection based
Delusionally based
Kienlen, Birmingham,
Psychotic
Solberg, O’Regan and Meloy
(1997)
Non-Psychotic
National Institute of Justice Intimate or former intimate
(1998)
Acquaintance
Stranger
Emerson, Ferris and Brooks Unacquainted
Gardner (1998)
Pseudo acquainted
Semi-acquainted
Intimately acquainted
Mullen, Pathé, Purcell and Rejected
Stuart (1999)
Intimacy seeking
Incompetent
Resentful
Predatory
Budd, Mattinson and Myhill Female victim-intimate relationship with offender
(2000)
Female victim-non-intimate relationship with offender
Male victim-intimate relationship with offender
Male victim-intimate relationship with offender
Alternatively, Mullen et al. (1999)
developed their typology around
the motivations of stalkers. They
identified five specific “types” of
stalkers, these being:
the “rejected”
the “intimacy seeking”
the “incompetent
the “resentful”, and
the “predatory”.
Kienlan, Birmingham,
Solberg, O’Regan and Meloy
(1997) constructed a simpler
typology that focused specifically
on comparing psychotic vs nonpsychotic
stalkers. Wright et al.
(1996) also utilised a simple
definitional typology of nondomestic
(where the stalker has
no interpersonal relationship
with the victim) and domestic
(where the stalker is a former
boy/girlfriend, family or
household member).
It should be noted, however,
that the classifications of offenders
have not been exclusively
confined to psychiatric research.
2
Those not specifically deriving
from a psychiatric orientation
tend to focus upon the
relationship between the victim
and the stalker as the most useful
variable in distinguishing
between types of stalking.
Examples of this approach
include the very simple typology
utilised by the National Institute
of Justice, which simply uses
three categories of “intimate or
former intimate stalking”,
“acquaintance stalking” and
“stranger stalking” (National
Institute of Justice 1998, p. 2). The
Home Office has used a similar
categorisation process (Budd,
Mattinson and Myhill 2000), but
with four categories organised
around the sex of the victim, and
their relationship to the offender
(see Table 1). Given these
different categorisations of
stalking behaviours, how does
current legislation cover this
offence?
Legislation
Legislation covering stalking was
introduced in Australia in the
mid 1990s, with Queensland
being the first state to introduce
stalking legislation in 1993. There
are a variety of critical factors
that need to be understood in
terms of understanding stalking
legislation. Most importantly,
there is the simple difficulty
involved in legislating against
stalking as a criminal offence.
Given that stalking is a crime in
which often “no physical elements
are present, only mental
elements” this means that criminal
sanctions can be imposed
upon actions and behaviours
which “on the surface are innocuous”
(Swanwick 1996, p. 26).
Within the Australian context the
primary criticisms directed
towards stalking legislation have
been those of “overbreadth”, the
differences between objective and
subjective tests of intent and what
should constitute a “course of
conduct” (Goode 1995; Kift 1998;
Swanwick 1996).
In terms of the three states
being examined, there are
important differences in the